mk47at: Please don't rely on md5 for security. It's not safe.
timppu: I would think md5 is enough to check if something is not corrupted, but not for checking if it is not tampered with.
Considering the installers are compressed, getting the MD5 to match, and be tampered with, and tamper with executable code vs say images or map data, as well as still be a valid bitstream (
as not to barf during install) seems a bit low. Though you could always have two or three different hashes, you can't make them all work.
Couple years ago i wrote a bash script to find duplicate files; this script heavily relies on md5. I figure, if the hashes don't match, it can't possibly be similar files. If they do match, there's a 99% or higher they are identical, so before it does the full delete & link or make a restore script, it does a full byte-by-byte compare just to make sure first. Works pretty darn well too.
In general md5 is sufficient unless you need to be extra paranoid.
W3irdN3rd: W3irdN3rd: Yes, I try to keep Windows offline.
Geralt_of_Rivia: And that is the reason why the signature does not verify. You are missing one of the certificates in the certificate chain. Windows downloads missing certificates automatically but if it can't do that the signature will not verify.
In theory anyone can make a new certificate and just sign it themselves and slap it on something. But with public key encryption, you should be able to verify the public key (
since it should be public and published somewhere) is indeed genuine. Fully offline can't verify that step, so yeah i'd expect a 'unknown' or 'unverified' publisher.